|
pawsplay posted:Actually, it is. That is the basis of the empirical method. The guy who said "The plural of anecdote is not data" was being snarky and was talking about unscientific anecdotal evidence, and was, when he said it, definitely wrong.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Liesmith posted:at the risk of reigniting that whole argument I want to point out that none of you were right anyway. 4E is NOT D&D, 3.5E was not D&D. 2E was the pure essence. Druids capped at level 14, fighters getting boss fortresses while rogues get thieves guilds and druids get stupid groves. Elfs not being resurrectable because they have no souls. Thats why they called that poo poo advanced
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Robotic Folksinger posted:Read this as fighters getting booze fortresses. Was disappointed, hope they fix this in 5e. Step 2) Get a fortress ( Step 3 is everyone dying of magma)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Literally NOBODY is annoyed that you disagree with them. We're all actually annoyed because you say things that are obviously, demonstrably false as if they are gods-ordained fact. And, in my case at least, because we know that you know that you are saying things that aren't true, and yet keep on saying them. The Hate Song of J. Alfred Prufrock 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:I loving love monopoly, making deals that aren't in the rules like "I'll sell you all my railroads in exchange for your two green properties but I never have to pay for the railroads"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That is so beautifully in the spirit of the game. Collateralized Boardwalk Swaps
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Gul Banana posted:monopoly is deliberately awful because it was invented by a communist to demonstrate the evils of private ownership I know this, and I'm sure a lot of people here know this, because there are a lot of nerds that study  GAME HISTORYHowever, most people who play monopoly do so because they had it when they were a kid and their desire to play monopoly is fueled by that nostalgia and not the desire to parody capitalism. I'm totally fine with demonstrating how capitalism is Not Good, but monopoly is also a bad game that people only play because nobody knows better. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
I know monopoly is bad but sometimes I play it anyway, because that and risk were my family's two go-to games whenever a major power outage hit. I must have played like 11 games of monopoly during the ice storm of '98. nostalgia is a hell of a thingSplicer posted:Step 1) Be a dwarf nah there's definitely some kind of "keg of something alcoholic that never needs refilling" wondrous item in both 3.x and 4e, and probably a permanent stronghold upgrade that does the same thing only better. just buy like a million of those and make your fortune renting out your facilities to rich nobles and adventurers. if someone gets set to invade just be like "uhh partyfort literally has no strategic value, I only built this fort here because there's a mystic dryad grove nearby and watching dryads get drunk is funny as gently caress" then offer them a literally infinite quantity of free booze to leave you alone, while simultaneously pointing out that you are armed with an equally infinite quantity of homemade firebombs. if they attack anyway then they are probably prohibitionists and it's time for boozefort to make its glorious mark on history
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
Drox posted:I know this, and I'm sure a lot of people here know this, because there are a lot of nerds that study Anti-Monopoly is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Wearsyourgodnow posted:The Hate Song of J. Alfred Prufrock Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a hot pocket? I shall wear white flannel trousers, and live in my mom's basement. I have heard the grognards whining, each to each.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Drox posted:However, most people who play monopoly do so because they had it when they were a kid and their desire to play monopoly is fueled by that nostalgia and not the desire to parody capitalism. I'm totally fine with demonstrating how capitalism is Not Good, but monopoly is also a bad game that people only play because nobody knows better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Wearsyourgodnow posted:The Hate Song of J. Alfred Prufrock LET us argue then, you and I, When the evening is spread out against the sky Like a wizard decapitated upon a table; Let us go, through certain half-deserted keeps, The muttering retreats Of restless nights in forgotten random hexes And random encounters with Grell or Skexis: Grogs that follow like a tedious argument Of insidious intent To lead you to an overwhelming question … Oh, do not ask, “Which edition is it?” Let us go and make our visit. In the room the grognards come and relax Talking of Arneson and Gygax. ... We have lingered in the local gaming store By gamers wreathed with boxes red and brown Till human voices wake us, and we get off the loving internet and do something else for christ's sake. Edit: Gaaah gently caress you Liesmith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
On last night's Colbert Report the Threatdown put the new computer-guided, simplified version of Monopoly as the #1 threat to America. (Skip to around the 5-minute mark for the Monopoly part.) "Monopoly is supposed to be a grueling 9-hour marathon that dad always wins because his bedtime is later!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:at the risk of reigniting that whole argument I want to point out that none of you were right anyway. 4E is NOT D&D, 3.5E was not D&D. 2E was the pure essence. Druids capped at level 14, fighters getting boss fortresses while rogues get thieves guilds and druids get stupid groves. Elfs not being resurrectable because they have no souls. Thats why they called that poo poo advanced There wasn't a lot that a Magic User could do in AD&D that a Fighter with his 1,000 followers couldn't do better and faster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Gomi posted:Anti-Monopoly is a thing. man if you don't think I don't know everything about board games then I just don't know what to tell you. FMguru posted:I'm pretty sure that monopoly is popular because of its flaws. It's something that gets dragged out on a rainy day or a shot-to-hell evening when you have a lot of time to kill, and it's good at killing time and providing some structure for social interaction while also being utterly undemanding. The fact that most people play it with a set of passed-along house rules that make the game even more boring and interminable (no auctions, fines go into a pot to be rewarded to people who land of free parking, etc.) would seem to indicate that most people play it for its time-passing ability, not its strengths as a game. My counterpoint to that is that the vast majority of people don't put a lot of thought into what makes a game a good game or even just one that they like. They play monopoly because they have it and they have it because their parents had a copy. I know several people (most of them old folks (my grandparents)) who in earnest say that monopoly is fun. If you want to pass time I think drinking is a better option. edit: see also risk and how every time you break it out everyone is excited and pumped and then around the 3rd hour or so you remember that it usually takes 4 more hours and everyone goes home because you have work in the morning and you're not 14 anymore with unlimited free time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Doug Lombardi posted:There wasn't a lot that a Magic User could do in AD&D that a Fighter with his 1,000 followers couldn't do better and faster. This is the kind of poo poo I'm gonna be putting into my DnD Campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
It really owns. Fully half of the fighter's description in the Player's Handbook is dedicated to the kind of troops he gets at level 9.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:at the risk of reigniting that whole argument I want to point out that none of you were right anyway. 4E is NOT D&D, 3.5E was not D&D. 2E was the pure essence. Druids capped at level 14, fighters getting boss fortresses while rogues get thieves guilds and druids get stupid groves. Elfs not being resurrectable because they have no souls. Thats why they called that poo poo advanced
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
In my experience, its because now "everyone has something to do in combat", a few weeks ago I was playing a trapmaker rogue in a high-level pathfinder campaign, and the DM threw a couple of red dragons against us, 20 minutes into combat I took out my ereader and completely disconnected myself from the game until it was my turn because everyone else one way or another had access to spells and had to sit down and go through their lists, ironically combat went a lot faster than in 4E, but it was mostly because both the fighter and I had a lot less to think about so our turns went by pretty quickly. Now, before this becomes a criticism on pathfinder, I have to say that in 3.X the cool toys are only half of the fun, a fighter played by someone with a little skill in tactics is a nightmare in the battlefield, and the highest damage output came from the fighter and myself, of course, I spent half the combat finding hiding places (as a range rogue) so I could get my sneak attack damage, fluff wise, the rogue that always kept the dragon second guessing was way too awesome, but mechanics wise it was kind of dull. The problem lies with the fact that -at least to my eyes-, Pre-3.X were games with complex mechanics, but a fairly well though out game experience, a regular combat lasted on average no more than 15 minutes, (more if the character were facing something akin to a Beholder) so the rogue or the bard, who weren't combat proficient didn ´t had to wait long to get back into adventuring and roleplaying -which was their strength-, when 3.X came around the designers added a layer of tactics around combat to challenge the players, but a tactical game usually takes longer to resolve, this brought forward the fact that some classes were more involved in combat than others, so when 4E comes around they could´ve fixed it by either making the combats faster, or giving those "utility classes" more to do in combat... guess which one they picked. This of course is not a flaw, it was a design decision, but a lot of us who actually enjoyed the adventuring aspect of the game find this over-emphasis in combat a tad jarring, and we cant deny that even if 4e has all they aspects of a roleplaying game, what really makes it shine its the combat, to the point that sometimes the game forgets its other aspects -for example, what does being a "striker" mean in out of combat situations?, with all the options available to a rogue -awesome utility powers for example- I would have a role called "infiltrator" which means "this is a characters that solves problems with deception, wits and trickery"-... but I digress. Thing is, what I find most appealing about pathinder is that the game strives to give every aspect of the game world the same level of complexity, so yeah, a bard can lie to a tavern keeper and present himself as the moon, but think about it, he´s using magic potions and spells to get to that level of deception, how is that different from casting a charm person or an "insta-friend" spell on an enemy and having it fight your battle?, as a player of 4E and Pathfinder I say,, the reason why I prefer pathfinder is because of the level of depth the system gives to different areas of "adventuring".
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
Drox posted:edit: see also risk and how every time you break it out everyone is excited and pumped and then around the 3rd hour or so you remember that it usually takes 4 more hours and everyone goes home because you have work in the morning and you're not 14 anymore with unlimited free time. Risk is a good game to play when you're getting sick of your little brother's poo poo and he hasn't given you a good reason to put him in his place recently. Because it always ends in a fistfight loser cleans up
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:Risk is a good game to play when you're getting sick of your little brother's poo poo and he hasn't given you a good reason to put him in his place recently. Because it always ends in a fistfight Play Risk 2210, Nuke the Moon Edition
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Play Risk 2210, Nuke the Moon Edition Risk 2210 owns. 420 nuke undersea colonies every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
quote:Coming soon: I'm Going to Put a Nail Up Your Dick, The RPG! This is probably old but it made me smile. I can't tell if its grog or anti grog. (BTW if you can't tell this is making fun of that LotFP guy's ICP inspired Grindhouse edition of his retroclone.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:LET us argue then, you and I, In the room the grognards come and go Vaster than empires, and more slow
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Wait, wait. "I prefer PF even though I literally ignored the entire game until it was my turn regularly" and the idea that somehow rogues and bards are somehow better at roleplaying? What?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Edit: Gaaah gently caress you Liesmith. I grow old, I grow old I played with Gygax
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
Drox posted:My counterpoint to that is that the vast majority of people don't put a lot of thought into what makes a game a good game or even just one that they like. They play monopoly because they have it and they have it because their parents had a copy. I know several people (most of them old folks (my grandparents)) who in earnest say that monopoly is fun. Drinking is a fine way to pass time, but it's not recommended for keeping kids distracted on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Also it's not free, unlike that battered Monopoly box that has been in the family for 25 years. (I also think a lot of Monopoly's appeal is in the fact that it has stacks and stacks of pretend money that you play with and shuffle around and daydream about being real.) And yeah Risk is another game that's utterly terrible yet ever-present. There's also the way that everyone thinks that they were the first person to come up with the brilliant "just hole up in Australia" strategy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The way that the preferred way to play it is the even more boring house-ruled version is a strong hint that it's time-wasting nature is a feature, not a bug. quote:Drinking is a fine way to pass time, but it's not recommended for keeping kids distracted on a rainy Sunday afternoon
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
if your mom didn't rub whisky on your gums when you were teething as a baby she's basically abusive hth
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Wait, wait. "I prefer PF even though I literally ignored the entire game until it was my turn regularly" and the idea that somehow rogues and bards are somehow better at roleplaying? What? Yeah apparently 4e also removed all the "Adventuring" for non spellcasters, I am pressing him for more, because I am just befuddled. also For I have played them all already, known them all:— Have known the Old, Advanced, And New, I have measured out my life with mountain dew; I know my characters dying with a dying fall Beneath the laughter from the other rooms. So how should I presume?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Drox posted:Risk 2210 owns. 420 nuke undersea colonies every day. that game really does own. anyone who hasn't played it should do so at the earliest opportunity. in my first game, I fought a protracted land war against my wife while keeping a friend at bay with diplomatic trickery and underhanded dealings. eventually I lost and my army retreated to its lunar colony, steadily conquering the entire moon for itself while my wife's dread army spread unchecked back on earth. then someone played some kind of doomsday card and my wife launched every nuke she had at once, which turned out to be enough to blow up about two thirds of the world. in the end the irradiated remnants of earth were hers to command, while my moon people huddled in their moon domes, fearful of the madwoman who'd subjugated the human race with nuclear fire. best game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Oh my god the Hate Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
I'd like to echo the sentiment that Risk 2210 is amazing. Lunar land grabs erryday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
I'd do a grog translation of The Waste Land but I think I'd start taking it seriously and just do the whole thing ed: and then I guess probably kill myself
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Isn't there a version of Risk with the continent of Atlantis, wherein one player always sinks Atlantis and wins the game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Etherwind posted:Isn't there a version of Risk with the continent of Atlantis, wherein one player always sinks Atlantis and wins the game? Risk: Godstorm. Also, your armies that die get sent to Hades and have the chance to fight back into the realm of the living.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:You should elaborate on this. I've basically enjoyed all my sessions of Catan, but there totally is something weird about the game I can't put my finger down on. Sometimes if the dice frowns on you a game can be lovely since nothing happens. Like for some reason even though say every brick producing territory has a 6 or 8 those two just don't come up as often as they should and we were starved for it. Or I've found if too early on resources are spent utterly dicking someone over (so instead of spending resources to gain victory points, or more resources it's just a race to cut off other people's roads or encircle their colony) it can make for a boring game. Like in magic when a player has a deck consisting solely of control and a 1 damage pinger so in like 20 turns they can win!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I'm pretty sure that monopoly is popular because of its flaws. It's something that gets dragged out on a rainy day or a shot-to-hell evening when you have a lot of time to kill, and it's good at killing time and providing some structure for social interaction while also being utterly undemanding. The fact that most people play it with a set of passed-along house rules that make the game even more boring and interminable (no auctions, fines go into a pot to be rewarded to people who land of free parking, etc.) would seem to indicate that most people play it for its time-passing ability, not its strengths as a game. I don't know that I agree that this is true about Monopoly, but I totally think that card/board/roleplaying games have two major things that make them fun. The first is being a good game, mechanically. Having solid rules that don't suck. This is pretty straightforward. The second is some combo of being a good social experience/making a good story. Roleplaying games obviously are way into this, but I think it's easy to underestimate how much enjoyment people get from this in card games/etc, too. "Nuke the moon!" is way more fun than "remove 1/2 of all p-tokens from each square in area 7," even if they're the exact same mechanically. This is how I justify games like Fluxx. Fluxx is The Worst game on a purely mechanical level, since there's basically no skill involved or meaningful room for player input beyond maybe a very low 'don't gently caress up' threshold. What it does do, though, is provide just enough stimulation to keep people busy during lulls in the conversation, not so engaged that table-chatter doesn't rule, and is absolutely amazing at introducing the right type of randomized story-props that get people really into forming their own little mini-stories trying to make a narrative out of the fact that they have a shotgun, some toast, and the moon laying on the table in front of them. It gives people something to talk about and doesn't keep them from talking about other things, which makes it just about the perfect low-key social game. It's utter poo poo if you pay any attention to the mechanics, though. I guess the flip side is something like Go, where it's pretty drat hard to make a narrative out of a bunch of black and white stones on a board, but the mechanics are just perfect. Go is in no way a good social game, though, and is kind of exhausting to play in a way that Fluxx could never be. (Although on a side-note, I don't think I've ever found a game as good as Go at letting you really get a feel for the person you're playing's personality via purely the gameplay choices they make.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:Risk is a good game to play when you're getting sick of your little brother's poo poo and he hasn't given you a good reason to put him in his place recently. Because it always ends in a fistfight This must be why I never liked risk, my copy was missing a piece. I don't have a little brother.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
I exercised poor judgment in replying post by post. Sorry. I thought it would be rude to simply ignore people who seemed to be posting earnestly, but in the end, what actually happened was worse. At some point, the posts were going too fast for anyone to actually read what I was saying, even if they had the inclination, and a fruitless argument is most definitely a sin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 19:51
|
|